119 Wash. App. 636 | Wash. Ct. App. | 2004
The question here is whether a state court has jurisdiction over a claim arising out of the employment of a non-Indian employee of the Muckleshoot Gaming Commission. Because the tribe exercised its sovereign authority over its relationship with its employees, state courts have no jurisdiction over this matter, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
The Muckleshoot Gaming Commission (Commission) is a governmental subdivision of the federally recognized Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and is responsible for regulating the tribe’s gaming operations. Both parties here are employees of the Gaming Commission. Carlos R. Feliciano Rodriguez is a gaming agent, and Joel Wong is the executive director. Neither party is a member of the tribe.
The Gaming Commission grievance procedure is set forth in its personnel manual. Rodriguez believed he had been wrongly treated by Wong, and pursuant to the procedure in the manual, he filed a formal grievance alleging several instances of misconduct. The Commission’s Grievance Committee (Committee) held a hearing and issued a written report in which it found some, but not all, of Rodriguez’s allegations had merit.
Unsatisfied by this resolution, Rodriguez initiated a lawsuit against Wong and his marital community in King County Superior Court. Although he had not done so in his grievance, Rodriguez characterized Wong’s treatment as racially motivated, and asserted a claim of discrimination based upon race and ethnicity.
DISCUSSION
We review de novo the trial court’s summary judgment decision and its conclusion that it lacked subject
Generally speaking, a tribe cannot exercise civil authority over nonmembers because “the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe” in the civil context.
Consensual Relationship. At summary judgment, it was undisputed that Rodriguez’s claims arise from his consensual employment relationship with the tribe. Rodriguez specifically alleged in his complaint that the conduct giving rise to his claims occurred entirely within the employment context: “During his course of employment with the Muckleshoot Gaming Commission, Defendant Joel Wong has repeatedly subjected the Plaintiff to mistreatment based upon his race and ethnicity.”
Rodriguez agrees that employment constitutes a “consensual relationship[ ]” over which the tribe is presumed to retain authority.
Inherent Power. The tribe also has jurisdiction over this matter under Montana's second exception, because state jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s claims would directly affect the tribe’s political integrity. The tribal government has taken official action to regulate its relationship with its
Rodriguez nonetheless argues that the tribe has not exercised exclusive jurisdiction because of a provision in the manual stating, “Any Employee who takes their employment problems outside the grievance procedure without first attempting to resolve them in accordance with these procedures will be subject to disciplinary action.”
The tribe has thus exercised its authority to regulate its relationship with its gaming employees, and has estab
For the same reason, we conclude the State lacks concurrent jurisdiction in this matter. Indian tribes retain the authority necessary “to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations . . . .”
Likewise, here the tribe has exercised its jurisdiction to develop its own nondiscrimination and other employment policies, and the State’s assertion of jurisdiction
The superior court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine a matter arising entirely from an employment relationship with the Muckleshoot Gaming Commission was correct and is affirmed.
Becker, C.J., and Agid, J., concur.
The Gaming Commission found that Rodriguez failed to establish that Wong used abusive language, and that Wong’s failure to present an award to Rodriguez was an inadvertent oversight, but that Wong’s conduct was “inappropriate” when he failed to respond to a request for training at the Criminal Justice Academy, denigrated Rodriguez’s certificate in defensive tactics training, reacted unfavorably to Rodriguez’s request that Criminal Justice Training Commission personnel review his ability to become an instructor at the casino, commented upon Rodriguez’s alleged relationship with a female former agent, improperly alleged Rodriguez failed to follow chain of command in a pull-tabs investigation, and had
Clerk’s Papers at 82.
Clerk’s Papers at 227.
Rodriguez’s prayer for damages included “lost wages, promotion opportunities, pain, suffering and humiliation and his loss of reputation and such other relief as may be afforded by the law against malicious harassment and law against discrimination and the common law of the state,” as well as punitive damages. Clerk’s Papers at 5.
Clerk’s Papers at 18.
Enter. Leasing, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 139 Wn.2d 546, 551, 988 P.2d 961 (1999); Crosby v. City of Spokane, 137 Wn.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999).
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1981). The tribe’s adjudicative authority is coextensive with its regulatory jurisdiction. Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 453, 117 S. Ct. 1404, 137 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1997).
450 U.S. 544, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 67 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1981).
Id. at 565.
Id. at 566.
Clerk’s Papers at 4.
Clerk’s Papers at 4-5.
Clerk’s Papers at 5.
See Cordova v. Holwegner, 93 Wn. App. 955, 968, 971 P.2d 531 (1999).
Clerk’s Papers at 4.
Trimble v. Wash. State Univ., 140 Wn.2d 88, 93, 993 P.2d 259 (2000).
Clerk’s Papers at 43.
Clerk’s Papers at 87.
Clerk’s Papers at 175.
Clerk’s Papers at 172.
Clerk’s Papers at 175.
See Montana, 450 U.S. at 566.
Id. at 564.
358 U.S. 217, 79 S. Ct. 269, 3 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1959).
Id. at 220.
Id. at 223.
Because we conclude the state court lacks jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s claims, we do not reach the tribe’s arguments concerning sovereign immunity.